Thoughts from the interface of science, religion, law and culture

After spending several years touring the country as a stand up comedian, Ed Brayton tired of explaining his jokes to small groups of dazed illiterates and turned to writing as the most common outlet for the voices in his head. He has appeared on the Rachel Maddow Show and the Thom Hartmann Show, and is almost certain that he is the only person ever to make fun of Chuck Norris on C-SPAN.

EVENTS

WND Wants to Save American Masculinity

Creek Stewart owns an academy for survivalists. Creek Stewart is very manly and he wants to make sure you know it. Creek Stewart has a view of gender that is so simplistic as to be utterly cartoonish. And he wants to save American masculinity. How do we do that? By “getting tough.” So drop and give me 20, plebes!

I’m not a parent, and I won’t pretend to know how to raise children. But I am a guy and was once a boy and I know what boys want – and what their masculine spirit needs. I also know that if we don’t let them be boys, then the survival of masculinity in America is at stake. Help save masculinity and the American man by encouraging the following ideals with the boys in your life.

Get into the wild

Boys want adventure. They want to be a part of wild nature. They love the challenge that being in nature presents.

If your boy is trapped in suburbia, get him into the woods once in a while before his masculinity is suburbanized. Suburbia will kill the adventurous spirit in even the most manly man if he can never venture into the wild. Men and boys need nature and the wild adventure that it offers. Let them experience the organized chaos that only nature can provide. Give them a landscape view instead of one across a remote control. Let them throw rocks, wade in creeks, fish, chase small game animals, explore paths, hunt for arrowheads, run barefoot, build forts and hike mountains. Nature will take care of the rest.

Yes, of course. Because every single boy is exactly alike, dontchaknow. Every single one of them, with no variation whatsoever. And wouldn’t you know it, they’re all just like Creek Stewart. Quite a coincidence.

Let them play with things that can hurt them

Yes, let them play with dangerous things. Boys want to be warriors, soldiers and hunters. Warriors, soldiers and hunters carry weapons. All boys want to play with weapons, and there is nothing wrong with that. It’s natural, and that masculine desire should not be stifled.

And what about those boys who do not, in fact, want to be warriors, soldiers and hunters? Well they’re probably gay, you see, and just need it beaten out of them. Or prayed out of them. Hey, whatever works. Binary thinking for the win — except no one is going to win here.

He’s the kind of manly man who thinks girls don’t even exist. In other words, he’s still a boy who hasn’t hit puberty. I hope, at least for his sake, that someday he’ll realize that what he advocates for boys is good for girls too, and has nothing to do with “masculinity.”

Oh, and BTW, getting into the wild and having adventures is something Pagans have been advocating — and trying to provide for their kids — for longer than Creek Dribble has been alive. Not only is this not a primarily christian idea, it’s an idea that many christians oppose because they want to think of themselves as proper, clean, special creatures, not at all like those other dirty brutes with their physicality and distractions from Pure Spirit.

So if Creek Steeart wants to save American Masculinity, he’ll have to start by saving it from American Fundamentalism.

I’m not a parent, and I won’t pretend to know how to raise children. But I am a guy and was once a boy and I know what boys want…

He has a dick, and that makes him an expert? I’ll bet my expertise is bigger. Phallocratic Essentialism FTW!

Getting kids (boys and girls) out into nature: Good!
Getting only boys out into nature: Good for the boys, but stupid overall.
Thinking that all boys (and no girls) like weapons: Stupid.
Thinking that nature and weapons will create some imaginary “masculinity”: Utterly brainless.

So yes, children, and really everyone who wants to, should get out into some wilderness (how about a local, state or national park?), but not for any of the reasons he’s given. This guy isn’t even a stopped clock.

Adventurousness, that’s fine to cultivate if the kid’s interested. Nothing wrong with that. You also want kids to eventually deal with some potentially risky things rather than keep them in a bubble, but that should involve adult supervision and education at the very least. The important thing is that you give the kid the chance to explore interests.

Of course, that applies to all kids, not just boys. And that’s where a lot of these nutbars go into shameful, childish tantrums, when girls develop an interest in “boy” things. The real threat to “manliness” I see is all the misogynists and homophobes who want boys to have similarly tiny social comfort zones, unable to handle women as equals. They want a masculine ideal that doesn’t include adult maturity.

I don’t see the problem you are describing, albeit based on one short comment. Perhaps you know more than is shown. Creek Stewart doesn’t mention beating anyone, gay or otherwise. And I don’t think that very masculine is necessarily anti-gay. His individual definition of toughness could potentially be problematic, and his writing for an anti-knowledge rag like WND is certainly a bad sign but I don’t know as his article showing up there is necessarily a clear endorsement of their wider idiotic message.

I don’t see even hyper masculinity, as strange and useless as it may be, as being necessarily anti-gay. One of the roughest and toughest men I know is both gay and, unless sorely provoked well past what any reasonable person would take, generally non-violent. I’ve seen him take a beating instead of risking hurting his opponent and potentially discrediting his associates. He is big and tough. Two tours as a marine. And currently looking into marrying his boyfriend.

More generally speaking I think getting kids out into the woods, and particularly encouraging them to get seriously dirty, is increasingly looking like a good way to build their immune defense systems. I also see no down side to engaging with nature and understanding life/death and how critters fit into an ecosystem as both consumer and consumed. In my limited experience even the most sensitive and introverted kids benefit. There is, IMHO, something very comforting to understanding that you are part of nature, that you are part of the whole, and that, like every part of nature, you both fit and deserve to be there. That you have every right to be the way you are. Nature doesn’t really care if you are straight or gay, male or female, cis or not. The mud will still squish up between your toes. The bug will still crawl up you finger. You still make a splash, and frighten the fish, when you jump into the pond.

If you could point out where Creek Stewart advocates neglecting or abusing kids who don’t take to the overt physicality I would take a dimmer view of his advice. He still could be a closet bigot but I don’t see it based on the short clip provided. I will have to dig deeper.

There is nothing more awe inspiring than seeing the milky way with your own eyes or canoe on your own power to a tent you and your family set up. it’s a great family bonding experience and it allows us to forget the cell phones and tablets and just TALK to each other by a campfire. Personally, those are some of my fondest memories as a child. As a bookish, somewhat asthmatic, little girl my self confidence was boosted every time I picked the right route through a rapid or found a constellation on my own. I cannot conceive of why anyone would want to deny that opportunity to a child merely because they happen to be a female. This man should ashamed of himself stereotyping boys and girls.

True story: I grew up on a swamp in Louisiana. Fished, played with wooden swords and BB guns, explored woods looking for cool critters, climbed trees. All that. Now? I’m grown, live in the city (can’t stand the woods, really), abhor guns, and watch My Little Pony from time to time.

Gonna go out on a limb here and say there’s not as much correlation between childhood activities and conformative gender roles as Mr. Stewart would like to believe.

lorn: what makes his commentary stupid is that he advocates nature and adventure only for boys, and calls it “masculinity,” when, as you just admitted, it’s just plain beneficial for both sexes.

As for whether he’s anti-gay, no, he’s not overtly so AFAIK, but he’s hawking a stupid idea of “masculinity” in a rag that’s infeted with anti-gay bigotry; so a little guilt-by-association and guilt-by-similar-thinking is kind of inevitable. If that’s unfair to Stewart, maybe he should choose more carefully who publishes his articles. And maybe try to sound a little less stupid.

As a child, I did like being outdoors. Playing with animals. Climbing trees. Following a creek downstream just for the heck of it. Never wanted to run barefoot again after scarring my feet. Never had the desire to hike or climb a mountain. Never wanted to play with weapons.
Guess I was not a real boy.
But if that is Creek’s idea of a real boy/man, I am glad that is not me.

lorn – I can’t speak for everyone, but the problem I have with this is his reliance on simplistic gender stereotypes. I’m annoyed by his insistence that his “masculine” desires are universal to all males, as well as by his exclusion of females from the equation.

I think most people here would agree that it’s good to get outside and do things sometimes. Some of the most memorable (and rejuvenating) times of my life were spent outdoors (one of the things that I like about living in Utah is that I can be in the Middle of Nowhere within a very short drive.)

But here’s the thing: “Spend more time outdoors” is good advice for a lot of people, not just boys.

Also, for the record, I never played with toy guns as a boy. Furthermore, I never wanted to play with guns, or swords, or other “dangerous things” as a kid (or as an adult for that matter) – in spite of the fact that I had three older brothers so I had plenty of options lying around the house. I didn’t care for toy soldiers either. I did play outside quite a lot, and I also spent time playing with dolls and other “girlish” toys (and, thankfully, my otherwise very conservative Mormon parents didn’t seem bothered by that.)

So yeah, that’s why statements like “all boys want to play with weapons” – or pretty much any other statement that tells me what I’m supposed to be like due to my gender – will always get my hackles up. The inference is that, if you don’t happen to want those things, there must be something wrong with you and you must not be a “real man” or a “real woman” – and that kind of thinking has been used to control people’s behavior for a long, long time.

Er… a correction if I may. Real survivalists think knowing how to get around in the woods is useful but only a moron would try to survive there. Even the low density Indian tribes circa 1492 on the American continent knew enough to head to the flood plains — and they were about 4000 years behind the tribes on the Eurasian continent.

The founder of the modern survivalist movement –and the guy who started the craze for assault rifles back in Jimmy Carter’s administration– was Mel Tappan. Mel openly ridiculed those who would play “Batman in the Boondocks” and said the fortified town in an agricultural area was the way to go. More modern writers like
Ferfal (who actually survived the economic collapse in Arrgentina circa 2001) says even that is a form of elective poverty and city suburbs are the place to be. Ferfal does agree with Mel that isolated rural cabins are just great “secondary crime scenes” –places where bandits can rape your women and torture you into revealing your secret stash of gold without fear of the police interrupting. (And god help you if you don’t have no secret stash of gold.)

When I talk to these guys I agree, and praise their role models, the Japanese Samurai Warior. Incredibly tough, fearless, expert with any weapon, skilled in the arts of war, Judo (Art of Gentleness), calligraphy, poetry, flower arranging; wore his long hair in an elaborate topknot; dressed in silk robes; practiced gay sex. heh.

…many of whom turned to glove-knitting as a career after the age of the Samurai had passed. Oh, dear. Poetry, calligraphy, flower arranging, long-haired knitters….I think Mr. Stewart’s brain just imploded.

When I was a girl, a long, long time ago, I liked being outdoors, being adventurous, regularly doing 15-miles a day while carrying a 50 pound pack on hiking trips. I think he’s forgetting a huge number of women that like the same things and an equally huge number of guys that would rather play video games, read a book or play chess.

It’s so creepy to me how these rigid gender role people seem to think that there is only one possibility for any individual. If you can’t fit in the mold they’ve decided you should fit in, then clearly the problem is you. There is no room for individuality in their world and that just makes me sad.

I think we need shy, maybe more bookish types and I think we need adventurous, outdoorsey types, and I think both of those things are good. How can he not see that? I’m not a parent either but I’ve encountered enough animals, human or otherwise, to notice that we have different personalities and temperaments. And that this is not a bad thing. In fact it makes the world a better, more interesting place. (Along with probably increasing our overall chance of survival because hey, genetic diversity is good!)

I imagine the tiny world he inhabits and, as much an asshole as he is, I just feel pity. But hey. Maybe we “need” small-minded assholes too. I’m having some trouble working the logistics out on that one, but I suppose the world is big enough for them too.

I don’t know. Maybe the fact that they don’t get distracted by grey areas gives them a focused, laser-like stupidity that is advantageous in some way I’m not creative enough to think of.

lorn- No, he doesn’t say anything specifically anti-gay in his article. But gender essentialism and obsession with rigid gender roles and “concern about the assault on traditional masculinity” are all weapons in the arsenal of the anti-gay right. It’s inextricably tied up in misogyny, which is inextricably linked to homophobia. They are two sides of the same coin.

The anti-gay nutters claim their opposition to homosexuality is because of teh sex, but what really threatens them is gender non-comformity (for men. All they ever seem to give a shit about is men and male homosexuality.) Some years back, I remember Ed reporting on one of those “we can change gay into straight” organizations that was modeled after a boot camp, with all kinds of outdoorsy, rough and tumble activities designed to get the fags to man up, because what was really wrong with them was that they just weren’t MAN ENOUGH.

So gender essentialism, obsession with conformity to gender stereotypes, misogyny and homophobia- all one big stinking gift package of the same shit.

The thing that stuck out to me is that he’s only aware of ‘the wild’ and ‘suburbia’ as if these huge, densely populated places called ‘cities’ didn’t exist. Suburbs are, more or less, a way for middle class people to get a pseudo ‘country’ feel but be within driving distance of a metropolis. But he totally forgets about the whole urban environment, which often (for some males in it) comes with frequent exposure to weapons. It just seems like not only is he ignoring girls, but also the entire urban population, which is often badly in need of some decent green spaces.

I know what boys want – and what their masculine spirit needs. I also know that if we don’t let them be boys, then the survival of masculinity in America is at stake. Help save masculinity and the American man by encouraging the following ideals with the boys in your life.
Get into the wild
[…]
Suburbia will kill the adventurous spirit in even the most manly man if he can never venture into the wild. Men and boys need nature and the wild adventure that it offers. Let them experience the organized chaos that only nature can provide. Give them a landscape view instead of one across a remote control. Let them throw rocks, wade in creeks, fish, chase small game animals, explore paths, hunt for arrowheads, run barefoot, build forts and hike mountains. Nature will take care of the rest.

@ 43 Michael Heath. WTF?
This example is at best only possibly, tangentally, related to the OP. Boating can be dangerous and accidents happen. When they lead to loss of life a certain amount of empathy is in order. Maybe you know something I don’t, and can explain why I am wrong to get the impression you are being a real asshole?

I’ve been fortunate to live in suburbs adjoining wild areas, and of course I think it’s wonderful for people to be familiar with nature and for kids to be able to wander outside adult supervision. It’s not at all obvious that this is exclusively a boy thing, of course.

My brother raised his kids impartially, and boy and girls alike can cook, shoot and do auto repair. Watching the eldest iron her work clothes I privately noted that that wasn’t the way my mother taught me to iron.

I feel I should note, though, that on my one visit to the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the only visitors to the rooms devoted to arms and armament were boys of various ages. It’s not that girls don’t learn the finer points of weapon usage – food preparation involves knives – but the people who wore that armor and wielded those weapons were traditionally men.

How much do you want to bet that this guy is as gay as a sequined goose.

When I was a boy I actually lived in a forest.* Right in with the trees and animals and everything.
Somehow I turned out to be gay. Go figure.

*I lived in Schiller Woods on the North Side of Chicago. Temporary Quonset huts were set up for veterans’ housing after WWII. Two years after we moved three they found the bodies of three boys who had been molested, mutilated, and killed. The case wasn’t solved until around 1994.

[The article I link to @ 45 is an] example is at best only possibly, tangentally, related to the OP. Boating can be dangerous and accidents happen. When they lead to loss of life a certain amount of empathy is in order. Maybe you know something I don’t, and can explain why I am wrong to get the impression you are being a real asshole?

No, it’s as a I stated, a perfect illustration of Creek Stewart’s idiotic advice in action. Lake Michigan is not a pond, it frequently generates waves capable of tipping a canoe and it’s cold that time of year.

Taking an 8 year old kid out way beyond the Lake Michigan shoreline in a canoe is the height of foolhardiness. The child died of hypothermia, where we know the temperature of the water in advance of getting into it, in this case 55º F, where mere touch should have been enough to stave off this “adventure”.

As a kid, I used to spend more time in the empty lots and scrub woods near our house than inside, at least in the summer. I still enjoy the woods — Lincoln Park is the closest thing we have to “Nature” in Chicago, at least that’s easily accessible, but even there, we have a few nature reserves for migratory birds. We used to visit my grandmother in the North Carolina hills regularly, and I spent even more time outdoors, fishing and just wandering around. I learned to shoot when I was about nine or ten.

And I knew from an early age that I liked boys, and I’ve spent my adult life in the arts — working in arts administration, and polishing my skills as a photographer, painter, dancer, and writer. I also like to have flowers around, either in a garden or a vase. And, if I’m to believe some of the feedback I’ve gotten along the way, people tend to see me as very masculine and somewhat intimidating. (One woman of my acquaintance actually said to me point-blank “I’ve always thought of you as a top.”)

So, based on my own experience, I’m forced to the conclusion that Mr. Stewart is pretty much clueless about masculinity.

@Raging Bee: She always did love to dance. Therefore, dancers are all ninjas. (No, seriously, they are. I briefly dated a ballerina back in undergrad that I met when she kicked a guy into me at the bar.)

Thank you for confirming that you don’t know anything about these people, the boat, what happened, or why they guy took his kid out there. Lacking all that, your argument is

The water is cold and has big waves. Therefore no kid should ever go on it.

Fortunately our ancestors drew different conclusions: have the right equipment and knowledge, and approach nature with caution and respect. They passed these attitudes on to their children (guess how) and went on to settle not just the Great Lakes but the Aleutians and Polynesia–in canoes–while fully aware that even the world’s most expert mariners regularly die in boating accidents. Your unwarranted assumptions about this man who just lost his son are sheer victim-blaming.

Thank you for confirming that you don’t know anything about these people, the boat, what happened, or why they guy took his kid out there. Lacking all that, your argument is

The water is cold and has big waves. Therefore no kid should ever go on it.

Misconstruing another’s argument because you can’t muster one of your own won’t get you far in this forum. My point was that no kid should be far from shore in a canoe on Lake Michigan when the water’s cold enough to inflict one with hypothermia. In fact they shouldn’t be on the water anywhere in Lake Michigan in a canoe when it’s cold and near shore without sufficient insulation so they don’t die from hypothermia if they go in the water.

I also know far more than the article I linked to given I live in the area where this happened, where there’s been plenty of additional information report. But the article I linked to above provided the necessary facts to reveal how idiotic and negligent this dad was in putting his kid in a life-threatening situation, a situation that killed his son.

Other articles regarding this dad’s gross negligence towards his son buttresses the idiocy of the father, they don’t absolve him. Like the fact he was an experienced canoeist and therefore should have known better; and that he failed to call 9-1-1 after a wave tipped them over, but instead called a campground. That campground didn’t have the equipment to locate the two on the water based on their call like a 9-1-1 call would have. But again, these aren’t needed to illustrate the extreme foolhardiness of the father than directly led to his son’s death. All we need to know is that this dad put an eight year old kid in a canoe to make a trip from Manitou Island to Lake Michigan’s shoreline when the water temp. was 55 degrees. Where the kid had nothing to protect him from the cold water if he tipped over, which in Lake Michigan is always a very real possibility.

Maybe it’s because I’m a bit of a gamer, but what really strikes me is his utter cluelessness in the 2nd and 3rd paragraph:

I remember one mother who said, “All he likes to do is play video games, and I’m not sure he’d enjoy being outdoors the whole time.”

I just chuckled and replied the way I always do, “Trust me. Put him in the woods with a knife in his hand, and he’ll be playing his own real-life video game. Give him the adventure he’s trying to fulfill with a game.”

OK, as a boy, some of my favourite games were:

Elite and Frontier:Elite II – sci-fi, open-universe games where you’re given a modest starship, a small amount of money, then presented with an entire universe and given the freedom to be an explorer, trader, fighter, pirate bounty hunter, or whatever else you could think of or discover.

Lemmings – incredibly frustrating and addictive puzzle game where you have to guide lemmings safely past various pitfalls and obstacles to safety.

Populous and Populous 2 – God games where you control a civilisation and wield divine powers to do battle against rival gods and their people.

Now how, precisely, do I have the same sort of adventures as I did in these games by being plonked down in the middle of some woods with a knife?

There’s also an entire section where the point sails mightily past his head:

Boys want to be heroes. They intrinsically want to save the girl and the world.

My intention is not to offend the new breed of women who resist heroic chivalry, but I am unapologetic in my belief that boys should be trained to be men who want to provide for and defend women. Teach them to be the knight in shining armor who fights to save the princess. There is a sense of pride and self-worth that only comes from providing for and taking care of a woman. Don’t steal this amazing feeling away from a boy who wants to be some girl’s hero.

I completely agree that women should have equal rights, but I still also believe that men should still be expected to provide for, serve, protect and defend their princess. It’s crazy that this behavior offends some people. Not raising boys to become men who are encouraged and expected to behave this way robs them of their natural desire to be heroes. Boys should not be scared to display heroic and chivalrous behavior because someone may be offended. It’s OK for boys to be boys and girls to be girls.

Encourage boys to serve, respect, protect and provide for the women (mothers, sisters, wives, grandmas, aunts, girlfriends) in their lives. Give them the opportunity to develop their inner hero early. This country needs manly heroes who unapologetically respect, serve, provide for and defend their women.

What he’s missing is that this kind of attitude teaches boys that girls and women need this, and are inherently weaker, because they’re female, and that it’s somehow ‘unmanly’ to be the one getting protected/cared for. Yes, it’s a good thing to want to protect and/or provide for someone weaker than you or less able to do this, but this is not necessarily a scenario of a man doing this for a woman.